942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

statutory authority to disaffirm or 

repudiate contracts, reclaim, recover, or 

recharacterize as property of the 

institution or the receivership such 

transferred financial assets, provided 

that such transfer satisfies the 

conditions for sale accounting treatment 

set forth by generally accepted 

accounting principles in effect for 

reporting periods after November 15, 

2009, except for the ‘‘legal isolation’’ 

condition that is addressed by this rule. 

(4) For Securitization Not Meeting 

Sale Accounting Requirements. With 

respect to any securitization for which 

transfers of financial assets were made, 

or for revolving trusts for which 

obligations were issued, after March 31, 

2010, and which complies with the 

requirements applicable to that 

securitization as set forth in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section, but where the 

transfer does not satisfy the conditions 

for sale accounting treatment set forth 

by generally accepted accounting 

principles in effect for reporting periods 

after November 15, 2009, the FDIC as 

conservator or receiver consents to the 

exercise of the rights and powers listed 

in 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C), and will not 

assert any rights to which it may be 

entitled pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e)(13)(C), after the expiration of 

the specified time, and the occurrence 

of the following events: 

(i) If at any time after appointment, 

the FDIC as conservator or receiver is in 

a monetary default under a 

securitization, as defined above, and 

remains in monetary default for ten (10) 

business days after actual delivery of a 

written request to the FDIC pursuant to 

paragraph (d) of this section to exercise 

contractual rights because of such 

monetary default, the FDIC hereby 

consents pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e)(13)(C) to the exercise of any 

such contractual rights, including 

obtaining possession of the financial 

assets, exercising self-help remedies as 

a secured creditor under the transfer 

agreements, or liquidating properly 

pledged financial assets by 

commercially reasonable and 

expeditious methods taking into 

account existing market conditions, 

provided no involvement of the receiver 

or conservator is required. 

(ii) If the FDIC as conservator or 

receiver of an insured depository 

institution provides a written notice of 

repudiation of the securitization 

agreements, and the FDIC does not pay 

the damages due pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e) by reason of such repudiation 

within ten (10) business days after the 

effective date of the notice, the FDIC 

hereby consents pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e)(13)(C) for the exercise of any 

contractual rights, including obtaining 

possession of the financial assets, 

exercising self-help remedies as a 

secured creditor under the transfer 

agreements, or liquidating properly 

pledged financial assets by 

commercially reasonable and 

expeditious methods taking into 

account existing market conditions, 

provided no involvement of the receiver 

or conservator is required. 

(e) Consent to certain actions. During 

the stay period imposed by 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e)(13)(C), the FDIC as conservator 

or receiver of the sponsor consents to 

the payment of regularly scheduled 

payments to the investors made in 

accordance with the securitization 

documents and to any servicing activity 

with respect to the financial assets 

included in securitizations that meet the 

requirements applicable to that 

securitization as set forth in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section. 

(f) Notice for Consent. Any party 

requesting the FDIC’s consent as 

conservator or receiver under 12 U.S.C. 

1821(e)(13)(C) pursuant to paragraph 

(d)(4)(i) of this section shall provide 

notice to the Deputy Director, Division 

of Resolutions and Receiverships, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

550 17th Street, NW., F–7076, 

Washington, DC 20429–0002, and a 

statement of the basis upon which such 

request is made, and copies of all 

documentation supporting such request, 

including without limitation a copy of 

the applicable agreements and of any 

applicable notices under the contract. 

(g) Contemporaneous Requirement. 

The FDIC will not seek to avoid an 

otherwise legally enforceable agreement 

that is executed by an insured 

depository institution in connection 

with a securitization or in the form of 

a participation solely because the 

agreement does not meet the 

‘‘contemporaneous’’ requirement of 12 

U.S.C. 1821(d)(9), 1821(n)(4)(I), or 

1823(e). 

(h) Limitations. The consents set forth 

in this section do not act to waive or 

relinquish any rights granted to the 

FDIC in any capacity, pursuant to any 

other applicable law or any agreement 

or contract except the securitization 

transfer agreement or any relevant 

security agreements. Nothing contained 

in this section alters the claims priority 

of the securitized obligations. 

(i) No waiver. This section does not 

authorize, and shall not be construed as 

authorizing the waiver of the 

prohibitions in 12 U.S.C. 1825(b)(2) 

against levy, attachment, garnishment, 

foreclosure, or sale of property of the 

FDIC, nor does it authorize nor shall it 

be construed as authorizing the 

attachment of any involuntary lien upon 

the property of the FDIC. Nor shall this 

section be construed as waiving, 

limiting or otherwise affecting the rights 

or powers of the FDIC to take any action 

or to exercise any power not specifically 

mentioned, including but not limited to 

any rights, powers or remedies of the 

FDIC regarding transfers taken in 

contemplation of the institution’s 

insolvency or with the intent to hinder, 

delay or defraud the institution or the 

creditors of such institution, or that is 

a fraudulent transfer under applicable 

law. 

(j) No assignment. The right to 

consent under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13)(C) 

may not be assigned or transferred to 

any purchaser of property from the 

FDIC, other than to a conservator or 

bridge bank. 

(k) Repeal. This section may be 

repealed by the FDIC upon 30 days 

notice provided in the Federal Register, 

but any repeal shall not apply to any 

issuance made in accordance with this 

section before such repeal. 

Dated at Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

December 2009. 

By Order of the Board of Directors. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–30540 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 

135 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20245; Notice No. 

10–01] 

RIN 2120–AJ65 

Extension of the Compliance Date for 

Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital 

Flight Data Recorder Regulations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the FAA 

published a final rule titled ‘‘Revisions 

to Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital 

Flight Data Recorder Regulations.’’ The 

rule required certain upgrades of digital 

flight data recorder and cockpit voice 

recorder equipment on certain aircraft 

beginning April 7, 2010. The FAA is 

proposing to change that compliance 

date for some aircraft as outlined in this 

notice. This action follows petitions 

from several aircraft manufacturers and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 943 

industry organizations indicating an 

inability to comply with the April 2010 

requirement. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before February 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2005–20245 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket, or, Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions contact: Timothy W. 

Shaver, Avionics Maintenance Branch, 

Flight Standards Service, AFS–360, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024; telephone (202) 385–4292; 

facsimile (202) 385–4651; e-mail 

tim.shaver@faa.gov. For legal questions 

contact: Karen L. Petronis, Regulations 

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; facsimile (202) 267–3073; email karen.petronis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

related rulemaking documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations 

providing minimum standards for other 

practices, methods and procedures 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority since flight data recorders 

are the only means available to account 

for aircraft movement and flight crew 

actions critical to finding the probable 

cause of incidents or accidents, 

including data that could prevent future 

incidents or accidents. 

Background 

A. History of the Regulatory 

Requirements 

In February 2005, the FAA issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

proposing to amend the digital flight 

data recorder (DFDR) and cockpit voice 

recorder (CVR) regulations for much of 

the U.S. fleet of aircraft (70 FR 9752; 

February 28, 2005) (NPRM). The 

changes proposed were based on 

recommendations from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or 

Board) that were issued as a result of the 

Board’s investigations of several aircraft 

accidents and incidents. A full 

discussion of the NTSB’s 

recommendations and the FAA’s 

proposed changes can be found in the 

NPRM. 

In March 2008, the FAA issued a final 

rule adopting many of those proposals 

(73 FR 12541; March 7, 2008). The 

requirements were adopted as aircraft 

certification or operating rules, some of 

which take effect on April 7, 2010, and 

include: 

• The recording of datalink 

communications (DLC), when the 

communications equipment is installed 

after April 7, 2010; 

• Wiring requirements related to 

single electrical failures and their effect 

on the DFDR and CVR systems; 

• The addition of a 10-minute 

independent power source for the CVR; 

• Requirements regarding the CVR 

location and housing; 

• Requirements for the duration of 

DFDR recording; 

• Requirements for the duration of 

CVR recording; 

• Increased sampling rates for certain 

DFDR parameters. 

A detailed discussion of the 

individual requirements and where they 

appear in the regulations can be found 

in the preamble to the 2008 final rule, 

beginning at page 12556 (Section-BySection Analysis). Some of the 

requirements are effective two years 

from the April 7, 2008 effective date 

while others are required within four 

years of that date. 

The preamble to the 2008 final rule 

also contains a discussion of the 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM. A total of 53 commenters 

responded, but only three of them 

included any comment about 

compliance time. Most comments 

focused on technical considerations or 

the cost of compliance rather than the 

time proposed. 

Of the few comments regarding 

compliance time, one came from Airbus 

concerning the installation of the CVR 

independent power source for aircraft to 

be manufactured beginning in April 

2010, requesting an increase from two to 

four years. We replied that Airbus was 

the only manufacturer that indicated 

that the proposed compliance time was 

a problem, and that Airbus did not 

provide us with any data to support its 

position that integration of the power 

source into newly manufactured aircraft 

could not be accomplished in two years. 

Airbus also commented that the 

proposed two-year time frame for 

integration of increased recording rates 

of 16 Hertz (Hz) for certain parameters 

was unrealistic. The FAA received 

numerous comments regarding 

technical considerations of the 

increased recording rates (not the 

compliance time). In the final rule, we 

adopted a lower (8 Hz) sampling rate in 

response to these comments. The FAA 

believed that incorporating the 8 Hz rate 

into newly manufactured aircraft was 

achievable in the two-year compliance 

time. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1We note that the petition does not define the 

type of risk cited, whether safety or commercial or 

the criteria under which the petitioner determined 

it to be unacceptable. 

With regard to DLC recording 

capability, the NTSB commented that 

two years was too much delay for 

incorporation of the recording system. 

Northwest Airlines, Inc. requested that 

the time for integration be two to four 

years to ensure time for approval of the 

message sets and creation of ground 

infrastructure. Several commenters 

discussed the compliance time as it 

related to technical considerations, but 

no comments regarding DLC recording 

equipment availability were received. 

B. Recent Industry Petitions 

Beginning in May 2009, the FAA 

began to receive requests for relief from 

various requirements adopted in the 

2008 final rule. Those requests are 

summarized below: 

1. In a letter dated May 1, 2009, 

Boeing petitioned the FAA on behalf of 

operators that would be taking delivery 

of new Boeing Model 777 airplanes 

between April 7, 2010, and December 

21, 2013 (docket number FAA–2009– 

0438). Boeing sought exemption relief 

for these operators from compliance 

with the requirements for DLC 

recordation and for increased sampling 

rates for certain DFDR parameters. The 

requirements would be effective on 

airplanes manufactured after April 7, 

2010. Its petition stated that ‘‘[D]ue to 

the complexity and high level of 

integration of the underlying avionics 

systems, Boeing has determined that 

type certificate design changes, 

certification, and implementation in 

production are not feasible’’ for the 777 

by the date in the regulation. As a result, 

Boeing would not be able to offer the 

DLC capability it does now, and its 

customers would be unable to achieve 

the increased quality of controller-pilot 

communications that leads to more 

efficient routing, less fuel burn and 

reduced emissions. Boeing also noted 

that an increased time for compliance 

would allow Boeing to harmonize its 

offered DLC equipment packages with 

the requirements of the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Boeing 

indicated that there is no negative effect 

on safety with a delay, since it would 

allow the current DLC equipment to be 

used. 

Boeing’s petition also included a 

request for relief from the increased 

sampling rates for certain DFDR 

parameters. Boeing stated that the DLC 

recording and sampling upgrades both 

require changes to its large-scale 

integrated avionics platform, the 

Aircraft Information Management 

System (AIMS). Granting the exemption 

would allow several AIMS changes to be 

bundled into a single upgrade, reducing 

the economic and operational impact on 

the operators. 

2. In a letter dated May 1, 2009, 

Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) 

petitioned the FAA to change the part 

135 requirements adopted in the 2008 

final rule that require increased 

sampling rates for two DFDR parameters 

(docket number FAA–2009–0441). 

Bombardier noted that, although as a 

manufacturer it is not subject to part 135 

since it is an operating rule, it considers 

itself responsible to deliver part 135 

compliant aircraft to its U.S. customers. 

Because the FAA does not grant 

operational relief to manufacturers, 

Bombardier presented its request as a 

petition for rulemaking to change the 

regulatory requirement for its aircraft. 

Bombardier found that the increased 

rates required by the regulation for two 

parameters could not be integrated into 

its BD–700 Model aircraft by the 

compliance date without significant 

system modifications. Bombardier 

requested relief for the BD–700 until it 

is able to introduce a new avionics suite 

that is scheduled for installation 

beginning in 2011. The relief requested 

is a footnote change to part 135 

Appendix F for the BD–700. Bombardier 

noted that its current installation 

records at 5 Hz rather than the 8 Hz 

required after April 7, 2010, making the 

required modification change significant 

in cost, but not the quality of 

information since it will affect only a 

few aircraft before the new avionics 

suite is installed. 

3. By letter dated July 16, 2009, 

Boeing again petitioned the FAA for an 

exemption, this time on behalf of the 

operators of all Boeing airplanes 

(Models 737, 747, 767 and 777) 

manufactured between April 7, 2010 

and April 7, 2011, to operate without 

DLC recording capability, without the 

increased sampling rates, and without 

the independent power source for the 

CVR as required by the 2008 final rule 

(docket number FAA–2009–0672). 

Boeing cited essentially the same 

reasons as in its first petition, ‘‘that type 

certificate design changes, certification, 

and implementation in production are 

not feasible’’ for all its models by the 

2010 date. Boeing noted that the rule 

requires the development of new 

equipment or modifications to existing 

equipment from multiple suppliers, 

including significant lead time 

necessary to certify and implement 

design changes. Boeing concluded that 

the ‘‘development schedules for the new 

and modified equipment either do not 

support the compliance date or have an 

unacceptable amount of risk.’’ 1 Boeing’s 

discussion goes on to note that the 

interrelationship and dependence 

between various system components 

‘‘prevents compliance with the rules 

until all of the components of the 

system are available.’’ 

Boeing stated that if relief is not 

granted, it will be unable to offer even 

the current level of DLC capability. 

4. By letter dated June 11, 2009, 

Airbus petitioned the FAA on behalf of 

the operators of 15 Airbus airplanes to 

be manufactured between April 7, 2010 

and December 31, 2011, to operate 

without the DLC recording capability 

required by the 2008 final rule (docket 

number FAA–2009–0665). Airbus cited 

the same reasons for its request as 

appear in the Boeing petitions, that 

certification and implementation of the 

design changes necessary are not 

feasible by April 7, 2010. Airbus cited 

the same justifications for its position as 

Boeing, some in identical language, 

including the fact that the use of DLC 

results in environmentally cleaner 

aircraft operations. Airbus’s petition 

does not include any relief from the 

increased data rates requested by Boeing 

and Bombardier. 

5. On September 30, 2009, Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) 

petitioned the FAA on behalf of the U.S. 

operators of its GIV–X and GV–SP 

Model airplanes that would be 

manufactured between April 7, 2010 

and April 7, 2012, including Gulfstream 

itself (docket number FAA–2009–0933). 

The 160 airplanes Gulfstream expects to 

produce during that period would 

require relief to operate without DLC 

recording capability, increased DFDR 

sampling rates, or the independent 

power source for the CVR required by 

the 2008 final rule. Gulfstream’s petition 

also stated that the development and 

integration of the necessary changes 

‘‘are not feasible’’ by April 7, 2010, 

using much of the same language 

common to the Boeing and Airbus 

petitions. Gulfstream indicated that the 

equipment for its PlaneView software is 

based on Honeywell architecture, and 

will not be available until 2011. 

6. On October 8, 2009, the General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA) petitioned the FAA to amend 

parts 91 and 135 to the extent necessary 

to extend the implementation date for 

some of the requirements in the 2008 

final rule (docket number FAA–2009– 

0963). The GAMA stated that ‘‘[F]or a 

number of reasons, a large segment of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 945 

the general aviation business aircraft 

industry will not be in a position to 

comply with all aspects of the new 

requirements’’ by April 7, 2010. It cited 

equipment availability, resource 

constraints and greater technical impact 

than initially considered. The GAMA 

sought regulatory relief from the 

requirements for DLC recording and for 

increased DFDR sampling rates. 

The GAMA petition stated that 

‘‘supplier and company resources 

necessary to make these changes have 

been significantly diminished by the 

faltering economy,’’ noting a 15 percent 

reduction in the general aviation 

manufacturing industry workforce. It 

estimated that ‘‘the majority of business 

jet manufacturers will be in a position 

to deliver aircraft which capture the 

appropriate parameters at 8 Hz by April 

2012.’’ The GAMA also noted that the 

use of DLC is so limited in domestic 

airspace that there would be no impact 

on safety to extend the recording 

requirement. 

7. By letter dated October 23, 2009, 

the Aerospace Industries Association 

(AIA) and the Air Transport Association 

of America (ATA) petitioned jointly to 

extend the compliance dates for several 

of the CVR and DFDR regulations 

adopted in 2008 (docket number FAA– 

2009–1017). The AIA and ATA sought 

to extend by two years the requirement 

for DLC recording, the increased rate for 

certain DFDR parameters, and the CVR 

independent power supply. The joint 

petition also requested that the 

compliance date for all of these items be 

extended three and one-half years (to 

2013) for the Boeing 777 model aircraft. 

This relief is the same as that requested 

in the petitions already discussed. In 

addition, the AIA/ATA petition sought 

to extend the DLC recording 

requirement by four years for in-service 

airplanes that have DLC equipment 

installed on or after April 7, 2010. The 

AIA and ATA characterized their 

petition as ‘‘consolidat[ing] those 

previous submissions in to a single 

proposal that meets the collective 

intent’’ of the previous petitioners. 

The joint petition stated that the 

changes required by the regulation are 

‘‘not feasible’’ by April 7, 2010, citing 

back to the petitions discussed above. It 

also said that the risk is unacceptable, 

and described it as a risk of ‘‘certainty 

of meeting a compliance date.’’ The 

petition noted that even more time is 

needed for the incorporation of DLC 

recording on in-service airplanes 

because the primary efforts by 

equipment and airframe manufacturers 

are toward newly manufactured 

airplanes. Approval of supplemental 

type certificates for in-service airplanes 

would not begin until after efforts for 

the newly manufactured airplanes are 

completed. 

The joint petition stated that failure to 

change the regulations would result in 

a ‘‘one to two-year halt in the deliveries 

of numerous new aircraft due to 

production issues’’ and a ‘‘one- to fouryear suspension of datalink installations 

on new and in-service aircraft.’’ The 

joint petition also predicted that a 

‘‘break’’ in the manufacturing and 

delivery cycle for new airplanes ‘‘could 

result in a smaller usable fleet or require 

the use of older, stored airplanes.’’ 

8. By letter dated November 23, 2009, 

Dassault Aviation (Dassault) petitioned 

for exemption relief on behalf of its 

operators for all Falcon series airplanes 

(estimated at 50) produced between 

April 7, 2010 and April 7, 2012 (docket 

number FAA–2009–1173). Dassault 

requested that these airplanes be 

allowed to operate without the 

increased sampling rates, the 10-minute 

independent power supply for CVRs, or 

the datalink communications recording 

requirements adopted in the 2008 final 

rule. Dassault noted that its U.S. 

subsidiary, Dassault Falcon Jet, is an 

operator of these airplanes in the United 

States as an ‘‘interim step’’ in its sale of 

airplanes in the United States. 

Dassault stated that compliance 

requires ‘‘the development of new 

equipment or modifications to existing 

equipment from multiple suppliers.’’ It 

also stated that ‘‘significant lead time 

[is] necessary to develop design 

requirements and to implement and 

certify the design changes on multiple 

airframes. The development schedules 

for the new and modified equipment do 

not support the compliance date.’’ 

Dassault noted the interrelationship and 

dependence between the various parts 

of the CVR and DFDR systems required 

by the 2008 final rule. 

Dassault stated that exemption would 

be in the public interest because the 

inability to operate newly manufactured 

airplanes in the United States ‘‘would 

have a significant economic burden on 

both the owner/operators and Dassault 

Aviation.’’ Denial of its petition would 

‘‘relegate these business aircraft to a 

state of reduced capability’’ and would 

force ‘‘operators not to upgrade their 

avionics load’’ with other avionics 

equipment that is bundled into its 

manufacturing upgrades. 

Similar to other petitioners, Dassault 

requests a ‘‘time-limited exemption that 

allows aircraft to be delivered and 

operated’’ without meeting the 

regulatory requirements. There is no 

indication that Dassault intends to 

upgrade these aircraft after the 

exemption would expire, leaving the 

FAA to presume that it is petitioning for 

permanent exemption for its airplanes, 

not something time-limited. 

9. By petition dated December 14, 

2009, Embraer Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronautica, S.A. (Embraer) requested 

an exemption that would be applicable 

to 5 EMB–145 series and 40 ERJ 170/190 

series airplanes that would be produced 

between April 7, 2010 and April 6, 2011 

(docket number FAA–2009–1204). 

Embraer requested exemptions for these 

newly manufactured airplanes from the 

increased DFDR sampling rates, the 

datalink recordation requirements, and 

the 10-minute independent power 

supply requirement for CVRs adopted in 

2008. 

Embraer stated that neither it nor its 

recorder system suppliers will be able to 

complete the development, testing, and 

certification programs for new recorder 

systems before the April 2010 regulatory 

deadline. Embraer supports its petition 

by stating that the current DFDR and 

CVR systems on its airplanes provide an 

acceptable level of safety. It also said 

that a grant of exemption would be in 

the public interest because the 

interrupted delivery of airplanes would 

cause business disruptions that would 

outweigh ‘‘the small benefit that would 

accrue from the increase in design and 

performance level of the DFDR and CVR 

systems.’’ The petition did not include 

any information as to what it has 

accomplished toward regulatory 

compliance thus far. The FAA presumes 

that Embraer is asking for permanent 

exemption for its aircraft since it did not 

submit a schedule when the 45 affected 

airplanes would be upgraded once a 

one-year exemption expired, nor did it 

request a permanent change to the 

regulation. 

C. FAA Response to Petitions 

The FAA is seriously disappointed 

with the manufacturers and other facets 

of the industry. The identicality and 

scope of the various petitions appears as 

a decision by industry not to comply 

with the April 2010 date, a decision that 

was made some time ago. 

Through contact with the petitioners, 

the FAA was made aware that one of the 

current circumstances appears to be the 

lack of equipment design and 

integration that begins with avionics 

equipment manufacturers. Most 

glaringly, in none of the petitions do the 

airframe manufacturers indicate that 

they had properly planned for 

regulatory compliance and are 

petitioning now because they are unable 

to obtain timely delivery of the 

necessary equipment. Nor is there any 

evidence that the airframe 

manufacturers have pressed the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2 Docket numbers: FAA–2009–0438, FAA–2009– 

0441, FAA–2009–0665, FAA–2009–0672, FAA– 

2009–0933, FAA–2009–0963, FAA–2009–1017, 

FAA–2009–1173, FAA–2009–1204. 

suppliers for timely delivery of either 

design modifications or equipment. 

None of the petitions addresses the clear 

failure to plan for and implement a 

regulatory requirement that was first 

proposed in 2005. Only the GAMA 

petition states that economic 

circumstances have changed enough to 

warrant a change to the compliance 

time. 

Despite a dearth of specific comment 

to the proposed rule on compliance 

time, the FAA is now faced with the 

discovery by six major airframe 

manufacturers that compliance ‘‘is not 

feasible’’ less than a year before it is 

due. There is nothing to indicate what, 

if any, efforts the petitioners made in 

the 13 months between the publication 

of the final rule and the FAA’s receipt 

of the first petition. Nor is there any 

indication by the petitioners that they 

have accelerated any effort to comply in 

the time since they petitioned. It 

appears they have chosen to use that 

time to seek a change to the rule and to 

rely on the consequences of their 

inaction falling on the FAA. In at least 

one instance, it is clear that the 

manufacturer simply decided to stay 

with its original timing for a planned 

upgrade even though it is well after the 

compliance time mandated in the 2008 

final rule. 

The FAA has been put in an 

untenable position with these petitions. 

The option of granting exemptions to 

every new aircraft produced and 

delivered to U.S. operators between 

April 7, 2010, and as late as 2013 would 

present a huge burden on the agency 

and the affected operators. Such 

exemptions would have to be granted to 

operators on an individual aircraft basis 

when each aircraft is delivered. 

According to the manufacturers’ 

petitions received thus far, this effort 

would involve over 400 airplanes. 

Further, these airplanes would be 

granted exemption only until they could 

be modified with the upgraded 

equipment. As we noted in the 

regulatory evaluation in the NPRM, 

such retrofits are expensive and time 

consuming, resulting in additional 

aircraft downtime and maintenance 

expenses for the operator. 

The FAA is unable to conclude from 

the information presented in the 

petitions that another two to three years 

is necessary to incorporate the changes 

in newly manufactured aircraft. The 

petitions contain little indication that 

any concerted effort was undertaken to 

comply, nor was the agency presented 

evidence as to dates or time of 

equipment delivery that supports the 

requested extensions. At best, the 

petitions contain reasoning why it is 

important to get the equipment 

coordinated between aircraft systems, 

not acceptable reasons why efforts have 

been lacking thus far. 

The FAA is quite aware that the 

parties that will suffer the effect of these 

failures are the purchasers of new 

airplanes. Accordingly, the FAA is 

proposing to extend certain compliance 

dates for the regulations adopted in the 

2008 final rule. 

This notice proposes extension of the 

following sections of the regulations: 

1. For increased DFDR sampling rates, 

the compliance date for newly 

manufactured airplanes operated under 

part 121, 125, or 135 would be extended 

until December 6, 2010. 

2. For airplanes operating under parts 

121, 125 or 135, datalink 

communications would have to be 

recorded when datalink communication 

equipment is installed after December 6, 

2010. 

3. For the ten-minute backup power 

source for CVRs, the compliance date 

for part 91 operators (only) would be 

extended to April 6, 2012. 

4. For increased DFDR sampling rates, 

the compliance date for newly 

manufactured airplanes operated under 

part 91would be extended until April 6, 

2012. 

5. For airplanes operating under part 

91, datalink communications would 

have to be recorded when datalink 

communication equipment is installed 

after April 6, 2012. 

These proposed changes to the 

compliance date are the only ones the 

FAA found to be potentially justified by 

the petitions submitted. If adopted, 

which is by no means certain, they 

would provide an additional eight 

months to two years to accomplish what 

should have been in the planning and 

implementation phases for the 19 

months preceding this action. 

All other compliance dates 

established in the 2008 final rule remain 

as originally promulgated. These 

include the wiring requirements for 

CVRs and DFDRs; 25-hour solid state 

memory DFDRs; 2-hour solid state 

memory CVRs; the CVR and DFDR 

housing requirements; and the tenminute backup power source for CVRs 

on aircraft operated under part 121, 125, 

or 135. 

We invite comment from the 

manufacturers and affected operators 

that may not consider this sufficient 

even with a renewed devotion of time 

and resources. Comments that include 

specific, realistic examples of 

equipment availability will be 

considered. These comments should 

include detailed information describing 

the reason for the lack of equipment 

availability, other options that have 

been considered and the efforts that 

have been taken to achieve compliance. 

Generalized statements, such as the 

ones presented in the petitions, are not 

valid evidence that the industry is 

unable to comply, only that it has 

chosen not to. 

The request regarding additional time 

for in-service airplanes made in AIA/ 

ATA petition, is unsupported by any 

data on the impact of a failure to extend 

the rule an additional four years. The 

AIA/ATA petition presumes that the 

regulation will have an impact on all inservice airplanes, but presented no 

evidence that the in-service fleet will be 

significantly affected by anything other 

than the failure of manufacturers to 

comply with the regulations for new 

aircraft, pushing the in-service fleet to 

the end of the line. We do not accept 

this reasoning, especially for a voluntary 

equipment installation. 

Accordingly, all of the petitions 

referenced in this rule are denied.2

Included in this proposed rule are 

corrections to certain DFDR and CVR 

regulations in which errors were 

inadvertently introduced by other 

amendments. Those sections include 

§§ 27.1457(d)(1)(ii), 27.1459(a)(3)(ii), 

29.1457(d)(1)(ii), and 29.1459(a)(3)(ii). 

These are rotorcraft certification rules in 

which reference is made to airplanes 

rather than rotorcraft. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 947 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it is to be included in 

the preamble if a full regulatory 

evaluation of the cost and benefits is not 

prepared. Such a determination has 

been made for this proposed rule. The 

reasoning for this determination 

follows: 

This proposed rule acknowledges that 

recent economic conditions have made 

it technically and economically difficult 

for manufacturers to certificate and 

install certain equipment to meet the 

current regulatory compliance dates. If 

the compliance dates are not extended, 

manufacturers will be unable to deliver 

aircraft produced after April 7, 2010 that 

can be flown under parts 91, 121, 125 

or 135. While the FAA could issue 

temporary operating exemptions for 

these aircraft until the equipment 

becomes available for operators to 

retrofit, that action would involve a 

significant increase in workload for both 

the FAA and the industry and 

additional retrofit costs. As the FAA 

determined in the Regulatory Evaluation 

of the 2008 final rule, the costs of 

retrofitting this equipment (except for 

the two-hour CVR), including the 

increased downtime, could be greater 

than the potential benefits resulting 

from the retrofit. Thus, this proposed 

rule would generate positive net 

benefits in comparison to the options of 

maintaining the existing compliance 

dates or of granting temporary 

exemptions and retrofitting airplanes 

with the equipment as it becomes 

available. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

FAA requests comments with 

supporting justification about the 

determination of minimal impact. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

The proposed compliance date 

extension will allow newer and safer 

aircraft to enter the fleet to replace older 

aircraft more rapidly than if the existing 

compliance date is enforced. The 

expected outcome would be a benefit to 

small operators that would purchase 

new aircraft. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and has determined that it would 

reduce costs on both domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in title 14 of the 

CFR in a manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish appropriate 

regulatory distinctions. Because this 

proposed rule would apply to the 

certification of future designs of 

transport category airplanes and their 

subsequent operation, it could, if 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically 

requests comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently in intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph Chapter 3, paragraph 312f 

and involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and 

it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

detailed supporting data. To ensure the 

docket does not contain duplicate 

comments, please send only one copy of 

written comments, or if you are filing 

comments electronically, please submit 

your comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 27 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Charter flights, Safety, Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 

125, and 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY 

ROTORCRAFT 

1. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704. 

2. Amend § 27.1457 by revising 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1457 Cockpit voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) It remains powered for as long as 

possible without jeopardizing 

emergency operation of the rotorcraft. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 27.1459 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1459 Flight data recorders. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) It remains powered for as long as 

possible without jeopardizing 

emergency operation of the rotorcraft. 

* * * * * 

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 

4. The authority citation for part 29 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704. 

5. Amend § 29.1457 by revising 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1457 Cockpit voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 949 

(ii) It remains powered for as long as 

possible without jeopardizing 

emergency operation of the rotorcraft. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend § 29.1459 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1459 Flight data recorders. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) It remains powered for as long as 

possible without jeopardizing 

emergency operation of the rotorcraft. 

* * * * * 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

7. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 

46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 

47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and 

29 of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 stat. 1180). 

8. Amend § 91.609 by revising 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 91.609 Flight data recorders and cockpit 

voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(i) All airplanes or rotorcraft required 

by this section to have a cockpit voice 

recorder and flight data recorder, that 

are manufactured on or after April 7, 

2010, must have a cockpit voice 

recorder installed that also— 

(1) Meets the requirements of 

§ 23.1457(a), (b), (c), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) 

and (6), (e), (f) and (g); § 25.1457(a), (b), 

(c), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), (e), (f) and 

(g); § 27.1457(a), (b), (c), (d)(1), (2), (3), 

(4) and (6), (e), (f), (g) and (h); or 

§ 29.1457(a), (b), (c), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) 

and (6), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of this 

chapter, as applicable; and 

(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of 

recorded information using a recorder 

that meets the standards of TSO–C123a, 

or later revision. 

(3) For all airplanes or rotorcraft 

manufactured on or after April 6, 2012, 

meets the requirements of 

§ 23.1457(d)(5), § 25.1457(d)(5), 

§ 27.1457(d)(5) or § 29.457(d)(5) of this 

chapter, as applicable. 

(j) All airplanes or rotorcraft required 

by this section to have a cockpit voice 

recorder and a flight data recorder, that 

install datalink communication 

equipment on or after April 6, 2012, 

must record all datalink messages as 

required by the certification rule 

applicable to the aircraft. 

* * * * * 

9. Amend appendix E to part 91 by 

revising footnote 5 to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix E to Part 91—Airplane Flight 

Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 5For Pitch Control Position only, for all 

aircraft manufactured on or after April 6, 

2012, the sampling interval (per second) is 8. 

Each input must be recorded at this rate. 

Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to 

meet this sampling interval is prohibited. 

10. Amend appendix F to part 91 by 

revising footnote 4 to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix F to Part 91—Helicopter 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 4For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

April 6, 2012, the sampling interval per 

second is 4. 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

11. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105. 

12. Amend § 121.359 by revising 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 121.359 Cockpit voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(k) All airplanes required by this part 

to have a cockpit voice recorder and a 

flight data recorder, that install datalink 

communication equipment on or after 

December 6, 2010, must record all 

datalink messages as required by the 

certification rule applicable to the 

airplane. 

13. Amend appendix M to part 121 by 

revising footnote 18, to read as follows: 

Appendix M to Part 121—Airplane 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 18For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

December 6, 2010, the seconds per sampling 

interval is 0.125. Each input must be 

recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling 

inputs (interleaving) to meet this sampling 

interval is prohibited. 

* * * * * 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

14. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716– 

44717, 44722. 

15. Amend § 125.227 by revising 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 125.227 Cockpit voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(i) All turbine engine-powered 

airplanes required by this part to have 

a cockpit voice recorder and a flight 

data recorder, that install datalink 

communication equipment on or after 

December 6, 2010, must record all 

datalink messages as required by the 

certification rule applicable to the 

airplane. 

16. Amend appendix E to part 125 by 

revising footnote 18, to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix E to Part 125—Airplane 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 18For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

December 6, 2010, the seconds per sampling 

interval is 0.125. Each input must be 

recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling 

inputs (interleaving) to meet this sampling 

interval is prohibited. 

* * * * * 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

17. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 

44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 

44715–44717, 44722. 

18. Amend § 135.151 by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 135.151 Cockpit voice recorders. 

* * * * * 

(h) All airplanes or rotorcraft required 

by this part to have a cockpit voice 

recorder and a flight data recorder, that 

install datalink communication 

equipment on or after December 6, 2010, 

must record all datalink messages as 

required by the certification rule 

applicable to the aircraft. 

19. Amend appendix C to part 135 by 

revising footnote 4 to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix C to Part 135—Helicopter 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 4For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

December 6, 2010, the sampling interval per 

second is 4. 

20. Amend appendix E to part 135 by 

revising footnote 3 to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix E to Part 135—Helicopter 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

December 6, 2010, the sampling interval per 

second is 4. 

21. Amend appendix F to part 135 by 

revising footnote 18 to read as set forth 

below. 

Appendix F to Part 135—Airplane 

Flight Recorder Specifications 

* * * * * 18For all aircraft manufactured on or after 

December 6, 2010, the seconds per sampling 

interval is 0.125. Each input must be 

recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling 

inputs (interleaving) to meet this sampling 

interval is prohibited. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 

2010. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1249; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–100–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 777 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require inspecting the bolt, nut, 

and downstop of the slat track assembly 

to determine if the bolt, nut, or stops are 

missing and to determine if the thread 

protrusion of the bolt from the nut is 

within specified limits and parts are 

correctly installed, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. For certain airplanes, this 

proposed AD would also require 

inspecting the slat cans at the outboard 

slat number 3 and 12 outboard main 

track locations for holes and wear 

damage, and corrective actions if 

necessary; and replacing the downstop 

hardware for the outboard slats number 

3 and 12 outboard and inboard main 

track locations. This proposed AD 

results from a report of a hole in the 

inboard main track slat can for outboard 

slat number 12 on a Model 777 airplane. 

The hole was caused when the bolt 

securing the downstop migrated out of 

the fitting and contacted the slat can. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct damage to the outboard slat 

main track slat cans, which can allow 

fuel leakage into the fixed wing leading 

edge in excess of the capacity of the 

draining system. Excess fuel leakage 

could result in an uncontained fire. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Duong Tran, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6452; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1249; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–100–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received a report of a hole 

in the inboard main track slat can for 

outboard slat number 12 on a Model 777 

airplane. The hole was caused when the 

bolt securing the downstop migrated out 

of the fitting and contacted the slat can. 

Each outboard slat main track has a 

downstop attached to the aft end of the 

slat track assembly. The downstop 

consists of two fittings that are secured 

to the track with a bolt and nut. The 

main tracks travel through holes in the 

front spar web when the slat is 

retracted. In areas of the wing where 

fuel is stored, a slat can is installed on 

the fuel side of the spar to surround the 

main track and contain the fuel. It is 

believed that the locking element of the 

nut was not fully engaged, and the nut 

securing the bolt backed off and allowed 

the bolt to migrate out of the fitting and 

contact the slat can. In addition, in 

production it was discovered that a 

downstop was contacting the weld on a 

slat can at the outboard main track 

location on slat numbers 3 and 12. This 

contact could cause wear damage and 

eventually a hole in the slat can. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in fuel leakage into the fixed wing 

leading edge in excess of the capacity of 

the draining system. Fuel leakage could 

result in an uncontained fire. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 777–57A0064, dated 

March 26, 2009. The service bulletin 

describes procedures for doing a 

detailed inspection of the slat main 

track stop hardware to determine if the 

bolt, nut, or stops are missing and to 

determine if the thread protrusion of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS